"Ancient India" was in Pakistan region, not present-day India.

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan was created by those masters of yours otherwise it was part of India ... as you can see in that pic.

Are you a imbecile? A cretin? Both Pakistan and India 'were created' by the same master - the British. Before 1947 was NOT your India. It only shares a name. It was British India. Look at the map and flag of British India. The British made it it. If a slavemaster got hold of you and locked you up with a bunch of other slaves it does not mean all of you slaves are a family. The only thing you share is your slavemaster,

In the past the British came with gun's made your great, great grandad into a slave, they came to my great, great grandad with guns and made him a slave. The prison that they built they called it BRITISH INDIA. As soon as they left were free and we went our way.

Mine got made slaves and locked in the British Indian prison in 1849 when they conquered Punjab and conquered Sindh in 1843. Do you know how you becama a British Indian? Maybe you voted to join it, maybe you wanted to join it?

This is how the British 'Made their British India'. 6,000 Sindhi's sacrificed their lives because they did NOT want to be part of British India. 256 British died making 'British India' and this cretin thinks the British 'divided us'. They bloody united us at point of death. Read below, learn some facts before you talk history.

Battle of Miani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Cretin why does that Rupee note have King Georges profile on it? Knock, knock what does that tell you? It was part of BRITISH INDIA.

British India ==========> Pakistan, Bharat, Bangladesh, Burma tied togather by British soldiers.

 

[K.P.K]

Day after Pakistan? Don't read false history.

Rupee note in 1917...

Now look to the left of it it's got pic of king George the v, unless he was an Indian this is British Indian currency.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And how exactly this conclusion has been achieved?The Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes (Jhelum) enough west to the eastern border of present modern Pakistan and further east there were a number of powerful kingdoms. It is difficult to assume that Persian historians did not know about these regions.If you have read Herodotus (I am sure you have) you can clearly see he had a fair idea about the ethno-cultural diversity of the region which matches all the description of North and North western part of India today. Only problem was he could see only things the Persian historians had let him see in Egypt and Babylon.


Alexander did not have any idea about the region 'Asia' either. Plutarch in the very beginning of his work tells us about how curious Alexander was about the unseen land he would once conquer. Does that mean Asia never existed before Greek army set foot on it? The Greeks had of course limited idea about the geographical limit of the land called 'India' in the East but the more they proceeded they did not identify with individual names of kingdoms but in a generalized cultural and geographic expression which had nothing to do with the present 'political India'. This had been the case at the time of Darius, it happened during Arrian and Plutarch and continued for the next thousand years.

I will tell you something. Let them pursue this. Pakistani 'history' is a joke the entire world over. Their own inability to come to terms with reality is something we can't and (if we can we) shouldn't fix. Their pursuit for history in isolation and claiming sole ownership is looked down upon in every place of importance and will continue to be so in the near future. We should stick to observing them and probably having a laugh over it in our pastimes. Let them indulge. Pakistan Studies Part II for Kids perhaps.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@SarthakGanguly I know we are on the right path? Shall I tell you why? The mere fact that you guy's are acting like bees bees being smoked tell s me a lot.

The last people we expect to support us, the last people who we will ask to validate is Indian's. This is purely a internal Pak matter. If what your saying is true why are you people spending so much attention on our history when non of you were invited?

We niether ask, or require your permission.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@SarthakGanguly I know we are on the right path? Shall I tell you why? The mere fact that you guy's are acting like bees bees being smoked tell s me a lot.

The last people we expect to support us, the last people who we will ask to validate is Indian's. This is purely a internal Pak matter. If what your saying is true why are you people spending so much attention on our history when non of you were invited?

We niether ask, or require your permission.

On the contrary. I want you to document all these. You have my best wishes. I am your most earnest fan. Please keep it up. I loved reading Pakistan Studies books. Sure, I will like these as well. No sarcasm. I am all for your exclusive Pakistani history. Tathastu.

Most Indians know little about the history taught in Pakistan. So they are taking things personally. I love this new endeavour. I am honestly loving it. Please continue and let nothing deviate you from your mission.

 

[Force-India]

I wonder why these Pakistanis are desprate to claim Indian history.Yes Pakistan controls that area now agreed. But history is a fact and the fact is this land has been of the Vedic people whose descendants live in India. This land had been invaded by many many other civilisations. But the point is why Pakistanis are so desprate to prove themselves the same people who lived there in past. The reason is you guys know you are invaders and can't claim the history of this land to simulate fake proudness, specialy after the so called 1000 years muslim rule which has become a joke. No matter what you claim, you are not the same people who lived there 5000 years ago, deal with it. Are you able to read Devnagri script? Are you able to read Sanskrit? 1857 Hindi Urdu divide what was it? You are the ones who lived here for 5000 years and then you are the same people who invaded your own land. Nice try though. You people arived in 900AD start your so called Pakistani history from there as it is in your books. Now everyone make fun of it does not mean you will re write history. But none the less, your atempt of Pakistani History Version 2 will fail too after some time because you people change party when something you claim loses its shine. You people only like to claim all good goody things and ignore rest. Such loser attitude will never make you real proud.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Ha Ha Ha. The mere fact that your here says everything .............................. No sod off !

This is about us. Period. I don't expect one Indian to agree with us out of 1,300 million.

What you thought was the only problem was 'Mullah Pakistani'. Your wrong. The history we are espousing is entirely secular.

F- India if you have a valid arument do put if forth. No gibberish. There used to be a Joe Shearer here. I rarely agreed with him but least he put forward a reasoned argument. You guy's are no hopers.

 

[Force-India]

No the only reason we are here is because you are claiming our history. You can claim greeks history we wont mind

Ya and you are not the part of that history since you didnt arrived yet in that Vedic land before 900AD buddy

You can carry on with your propaganda now i wont disturb hehe and yea good luck you need lot of it

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You don't still get it. We don't want your history. We don't want anything to do with you. Can't you figure our 1947 yet? When do we even go near your history?

We only stick to our soil, our land, our Indus Basin - The cradle of civilization.

 

[scorpionx]

Completely missing the point of the thread, Indus Valley Civilisation Was flourishing 2500 Years before before megasthenes,Arian or Plutarch came about, This is a map below of the world according to Herodotus who came before any of those Greek philosophers you mentioned. Megasthenes, Plutarch , Arian were either around the time or after Alexander's conquests therefore they may have contact with mauryas and purus, panda as etc who by that time had settled in the Gangetic plains

Brilliant!! Now all in our effort to validate your claim that ‘Ancient India was in Pakistan region not present day India’, we have to discard Megashtenes, Arrian, Strabo, Plutarch and have to strictly face towards Herodotus. Now try to understand the logical fallacies of your argument here.

Open any book on elementary history and see how professional historians divide different phases of world as well as regional history into distinctive time frames. All of them maintain a consistent standard protocol depending upon certain parameters. Generally we can classify the phases into prehistoric (period that does not have any recorded history), Ancient history (period between the time humans start keeping recorded history in a more or less accurate chronological order till postclassical age (approximately from 300-500 AD onwards) arrives. Now from this rough classification, which period ancient Indian history falls in and who qualifies to be regarded as ancient historians? History of ancient India did not just stop at Herodotus, it continued further. Megasthenes (350-290BC), Strabo (64BC-24AD), Plutarch (45-120AD), Arrian (around 100AD), all travellers, historians fall under the ‘ancient’ category. Just their description does not fit your nationalist agenda does not mean they suddenly become modern historians, neither their India lost its antiquity before ‘India’ of Herodotus.

Coming to the principle argument of yours that India that was represented by Herodotus actually is located in modern day Pakistan. Fundamental flaw in this argument is Herodotus and other pre-Alexandrian historians like Hekataios and Ktesias had a very rudimentary awareness (not knowledge in literal sense) about the region called India and most of their accounts depended on Persian versions, often blended with mythological fantasies and absurd fabrications. On the other hand, we know the Persian boundary ended at Hydaspes. It is quite unbelievable that the Persians did not know what lay beyond Hydaspes and Indus. Those cultural and ethnographic diversities, climate and general habits we see in the history of Herodotus perfectly matche with the ones of India; Herodotus might have limitations with his geographical estimations but his information about the pluralistic varieties were not all incorrect. The path he chose was later followed by his successors who not taking the trouble to identify the land before Indus with individual names like Magadha, Gandhara or Anga chose to express it as a compact collection of geographic and cultural varieties that was called India as an entirety.

 

[ito]

Yes, this is true, but before 1947 Pakistan region was part of India. Hence anything that happened there before is the legacy of India and not of Pakistan.

 

[Armstrong]

@scorpionx - What are you saying ?

You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !

On a serious note - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.

That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?

Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?

If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !

Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?

Serious Mode Off

I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !

 

[Zibago]

You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !

Elections in Buttistan
Gullu Butt

vs DJ Butt

@scorpionx - What are you saying ?

You were supposed to say 'Ancient India was in Buttistan' !

On a serious note - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.

That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?

Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?

If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !

Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?

Serious Mode Off

I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !

Average citizen of Buttistan

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

[On a serious note - Don't you think that many of your compatriots too could be accused of hagiography ? A lie of omission is still a lie...is it not ? Their continued proclamations of a geographic and historic 'India' being the same as the modern day 'State of India' or that the latter being a modern day rendition of the former which was, in their opinion, a country, too is way off the mark...is it not ? That somehow the State of India as it exists today is the natural evolution of the Indian Subcontinent or that just because 'India' or 'Indian' is taken as the common denominator here, automatically to speak of one is to speak of the other.

That really isn't accurate....is it ? Their failure to appreciate that India of the Ancient times and also of much later on is spoken off in the same vein as one now speaks of East-Asia or Latin America and their continued attempts at painting an ornate and romanticized notion of a Greater India that existed in the past as a singular civilization from the outskirts of Kabul to the banks of Dhaka with a common denominator between them too is incorrect...is it not ?

Furthermore this continued infatuation with what the Greeks dubbed this land or that land means nothing; the Sumerians before them, to the best of what I know, didn't call this region India or by any other name as they were more localized in their outlook on this. They instead referred to the lands by the name of their tribes - Meluhha as in case of the civilization that cropped up near the Indus Valley. Likewise I, at least, don't know of anyone referring to the inhabitants of Mehergarh or Gandhara as Indians either. So what really does a tag prove if not merely something that was born out as a convenient way to dub something but later stuck on - What does that prove anything ?

If we were to take half the arguments thrown about here; whole swathes of Europe should look to Germany as the nucleus, evolution and the the modern day rendition of Ancient Europe west of the Roman Empire, as most of those lands were called Germania. But no one does that because history and more so archaeology is appreciated, over there, as a lot more complex than a study that etches lines on a map and can be used to draw endless PR and political mileage from !

Therefore why do many of your compatriots, as well as mine, have an overly simplistic take of history and archaeology ?

Serious Mode Off

I bet in a past life I - a pure blooded Aryan Prince - would've kicked your Dravidian butt back to South India many times over !

你說的不錯。

Imagine though, if the Yellow River was no longer a part of China?

It seems inconceivable. Yet that is what happened to India, the Indus River is now in a different country.

 

[Armstrong]

你說的不錯。

Imagine though, if the Yellow River was no longer a part of China?

It seems inconceivable. Yet that is what happened to India, the Indus River is now in a different country.

Yellow River was in Ancient Pakistan !

Dude even in the past India was considered a Subcontinent of Countries not as a singular entity by a long shot. Just as Pakistanis broke or wanted to break all connections with Indic Civilizations were wrong likewise the Indians insisting that the modern day State of India is somehow the natural evolution of an Ancient Indie superimposed onto the paradigm of the notion of a modern day 'Nation-State' is equally wrong !